It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My First Youtube copyright block

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I feel like there are A LOT of shenanigans when it comes to these claims.

In this case, we still have the fair use act in play. Which is something im not sure exists in other countries, but they might or might not care. But, I've seen people get their own music copyright striked by the label that refused to sign them (ha!). Wish I could remember the specifics, but its not like its going to surprise anyone.

YT has some serious crap to work out on this, especially with those that rely on it for income. In cases like Gramblers, I would suspect that they are trying to earn money from both sides.

For those that don't know, when someone does this to a video, they can earn the ad revenue off your transformative video. Ironic.. but a VERY easy business model. ETA: May have something a bit incomplete here. Finding info is tough when what is written is wonky, and people/organizations are abusing it massively.
edit on 27-3-2019 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I might add? It's content within a work...something that one didn't ask permission to INCLUDE within your project.

"Fair use" is so totally misunderstood...that's why there are copyrights, trademarks etc.

You could copyright your video as a "performance of" or "taken from"...and you could do that....but not without permission from the c.right holders of their content within that you used.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Grambler

I might add? It's content within a work...something that one didn't ask permission to INCLUDE within your project.

"Fair use" is so totally misunderstood...that's why there are copyrights, trademarks etc.

You could copyright your video as a "performance of" or "taken from"...and you could do that....but not without permission from the c.right holders of their content within that you used.

That is lot my understanding of fair use

For example, your interpretation would mean no one could post an article on ats from another site

It would mean no article or books could post segments from another to disagree with

It would mean shows like morning joe would not be allowed to have a clip from a show like Hannity and criticize

That’s is what fair use says this material may he used if it is used for things like parody or criticism



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

No, that's not it.

Have you ever participated in a literary discussion class in school at any level? What do you think you are doing when you write about and interpret literature? You are making your own interpretation of what the work meant to you based on the author's material.

You end up writing papers quoting parts of the original text and then discussing your take on what you think the author meant. For all you know, the author was simply writing an engaging story, but it means something to you and you put forth your viewpoint. This is precisely what the OP is doing, only in video format.

This is exactly how the world of commentary works. You express your opinion of others' opinions. It was pretty darn obvious where the original opinion came from and it was therefore attributed. The OP made no claims to that work as his own, and his own ideas built off of that either explaining why he agreed or disagreed from it.

This is "fair use" -- using parts of someone else's work to build your own original ideas.

You'd have to have been completely out of the loop on your basic education not to understand how that works.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well said and exactly right.

It should be even clearer in my case because my videos were so long and only about 10% was actually from the original material I was questioning.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Business is business Grambler mate and unfortunately the big fish got the better of you.

It was bound to happen and you knew/know the risks in this type of venture...

Good luck for the future👍👍👍

Lags



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.


Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.


Once again, look at the T's and C's on ATS, your posts aren't under your personal copyright. Sheesh, this is embarrassing.


Fair enough.

SO I assume you have never posted an article on ats?

I mean, you would be infringging on copyrights then, correct?


I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say? Could you elucidate? You mean have I put links to the original source if said source was something I was referring to in a post? Yes I have. Is that the same is me posting copyright restricted material on youtube which I have then altered to reflect my personal point of view rather than the view that was originally expressed in that material? No, I haven't. I'm not inclined to do so.

Thanks for conceding that your criticism of myself and Jefferton regarding copyright status of posts made on ATS was misguided and incorrect though, well, in so many words at least.


I conceded no such thing.

I have posted links showing criticism is appropriate fair use.

Exolain to me the difference between you posting an article you didnt have copyrioghts to on ats, and me posting it on youtube?

Yes both sites may have different terms of service, but fair use is a legal concept beyond sites terms of service.

Are you saying so long as you agreed with the article you posted, it was ok, but had you disagreed or criticized it, then its not?


I'm no quite sure why you keep posting such nonsense.

If I linked to the original source of an article (which is what I always try to do where possible, to show it is authentic and unadulterated by me), how is that the same as you stealing copyright restricted material, manipulating it and posting it on youtube? How are you making a comparison between the two?

If two sites have different terms of service, then you can't measure the two as the same but AGAIN you are wrong. Youtube has now been made responsible for material posted on its site from a copyright perspective, in that it can be held liable for it. That is the reason presumably they have kicked your ass - unless someone complained to them that you are stealing it, 'substantially changing the messaging of it' and posting it as they see it as you taking someone else's work and presenting it as something it is not.

It's really not that hard, is it? You like to present yourself as at least relatively intelligent, but not quite sure it's working at the moment.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Saw this one coming well before the bend.
When obama was in office, there were intimations that only
certified journalists would soon be allowed to do political commentary.
This...is coming, as sure as they intend to disarm us, we, the people.

They like being able to lob hand grenades in to living rooms,
through monitor screens everywhere
which land right at your feet.

Next, make it illegal to throw ‘em back.

Unilateral warfare.
There’s nothing like it, really.
Just like shooting fish in a barrel,
except all the fish are stunned,
and they are using ray guns....


Thanks for inviting us into your homes!

# 1027
edit on 27-3-2019 by TheWhiteKnight because: I thought I had some beanies, and I wanted some more. - Beatle Paul



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Slow down or speed up your video samples by a small percentage, say 4-5% speed change... it will usually break the computerized content trackers and the only way they asshats will catch you is via user complaints that would have to be checked by an actual human copyright checker.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: uncommitted

No, that's not it.

Have you ever participated in a literary discussion class in school at any level? What do you think you are doing when you write about and interpret literature? You are making your own interpretation of what the work meant to you based on the author's material.

You end up writing papers quoting parts of the original text and then discussing your take on what you think the author meant. For all you know, the author was simply writing an engaging story, but it means something to you and you put forth your viewpoint. This is precisely what the OP is doing, only in video format.

This is exactly how the world of commentary works. You express your opinion of others' opinions. It was pretty darn obvious where the original opinion came from and it was therefore attributed. The OP made no claims to that work as his own, and his own ideas built off of that either explaining why he agreed or disagreed from it.

This is "fair use" -- using parts of someone else's work to build your own original ideas.

You'd have to have been completely out of the loop on your basic education not to understand how that works.


If what you were saying was accurate, then yes, it would be correct. But you are using a different analogy. If you are doing this in an educational environment you are typically not posting it to a commercial platform, and if you do so without asking the copyright holders permission then you are probably not very wise.

If you look at the copyright for most books, it actually states that an element (and some will state specifically how many lines or paragraphs) can be used in any other publication for purpose of review. That's fair use.

If a TV programme states that it is copyright restricted and someone posts it then it is in breach of that restriction. If they then further manipulate it and present the manipulated version - certainly without the original version for comparison, then they should expect for it to be pulled.

You aren't comparing like for like.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

You know .... as of a few days ago, even linking can get you in trouble per EU regs.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

By YouTube's own fair use policy, videos for educational purposes can employ material for fair use. Since the OP does not monetize (i.e. allow ads for money-making purposes), then this should fall under fair use.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Your attacks on my intelligence is amusing.

I guess if I was spouting nonsense I would resort to personal attacks as well.

You actually have this directly backwards.

Posting material exactly as it has been produced without adding something of value is more of a copyright infringement than criticizing it.

I used the language "changed the meaning" for a purpose.


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.


fairuse.stanford.edu...

In other words it transformative. Not as you are claiming that I am misrepresenting the original material on purpose. Instead I am criticizing it, which falls under fair use.


In the decades that have since passed, the standards of "transformative" have continued to evolve. Still, the status of a transformative work seems to be defined by two questions:

Has the material taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?


www.nolo.com...

Here is more.


The Copyright Act codifies the judicially created “fair use” doctrine. Courts have long recognized the need for such a defense because not every act that might violate an owner’s copyrights should amount to an infringement. The fair use defense was created to limit the scope of copyright through an equitable rule of reason. The statute provides, in relevant part, that “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies…, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…, scholarship, or research” is not considered an infringement.


www.forbes.com...


Despite your bravado about insulting my inteligence, I will take sourced material over just your word.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   


I have no idea if others can see, I can, but I dont know if the block affects others
a reply to: Grambler

Haven't had a chance to read every response to your post but I'm watching the video now, 9:55PM, Wednesday, March 27



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I suggest you back up all your content ASAP to another online service so you don't have to re-upload the data from a slow home connection. You can get 500GB-1TB for $4-7 per month that has very fast transfer rates (often 10Gbps to other servers and 1Gbps to more distant ones). LMK if you want to know the sites.

Also, I'm guessing you are going to see this type of thing happening more and more unless Trump can do something about it, but with the democrat controlled house, I'm guessing getting a bill that give protection to conservative media and independent media is a slim chance unless it can be snuck in with a bill that the Dem's really want passed.

We really need an alternative to YT and Google that people will use. I'm wondering if there are enough conservatives who are tired of it that they would work on a project like this. Maybe young conservatives in college could study Comp Sci and use some of that nice grant money to create an alternative search engine, media hosting platform and social media site.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wreckclues



I have no idea if others can see, I can, but I dont know if the block affects others
a reply to: Grambler

Haven't had a chance to read every response to your post but I'm watching the video now, 9:55PM, Wednesday, March 27

For some reason it is available when I post it to a site, but not viewable on my page.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Now I'm watching Mad Dog Maddow video...youtube's weird. I load live jazz band vids to my youtube page and will occasionally find a performance that is so tight, the bots throw a copyright violation...shades of Milly Vanilly



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: uncommitted

AAnd so instead of just hitting repliy to me, had you hit quote, and quoted my post, I guess you violated my copyright on my material.

You used my words in your post then, right?


Swing & a miss.

You agreed to give up those rights to your material when you joined ATS, it's theirs & no longer yours.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: uncommitted

AAnd so instead of just hitting repliy to me, had you hit quote, and quoted my post, I guess you violated my copyright on my material.

You used my words in your post then, right?


Swing & a miss.

You agreed to give up those rights to your material when you joined ATS, it's theirs & no longer yours.


Ok so then they are using ats copyrighted material then, which you could not post anywhere else.

But nonetheless I conceded already that wasnt a good example.

I showed criticism is allowed underr fair use.

I also point out that just saying you cant use any material from anyone else would mean you cant post an article from a different source on ats and comment on it if that were the case.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Dude, you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit. You won't win in court and can't afford to fight anyway, so when the notice comes just ignore it and when you fail to respond the judge will issue a summary judgement against you.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join